Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured

So, Benghazi has reared it's head again. And it is for no other reason besides distraction and an attempt by the Republicans to manufacture more
fake outrage in their base due to them losing support rapidly among the American public.

Why do I say this outrage is all fake and manufactured? Well, because no one cared about the 11 embassy attacks, 90+ injured, and 50+ killed in other
embassy attacks between 2002-2008. But for some reason, there is ONE attack with 4 people killed...and the Republicans are screaming about treason,
weakness, and cover-up.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed.
Sixteen more were injured.

So ATS, why is it that this one relatively small attack on a consulate is creating all this fake outrage when there is no historical precedence for it
even though there were many other worse attacks on our embassies around the world?

Relatively small attack? A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it
happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.

As attacks on national diplomatic missions go, just what would you term important, if this was minor?

Sometimes...I think our priorities are so screwed up, it's about hopeless to find our national path back to a place of sense and logic. Perhaps the
next time, they won't have a couple former SEALs break ranks to save over 20 civilian staffers and we can have a right and proper body count. Would
that make it more worthy of attention to at least answer what happened? I'd hope it doesn't have to go that far to warrant proper investigation,
beyond political butt covering.

How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.

What did they cover up or attempt to cover up?

I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.

They covered up the fact that Hillary was warned about the danger but either ignored it and did nothing or simply was so inept that she ran an
organization without ensuring critical information reached her so she could act.

They tried to blame it on other things such as a videotape which caused the problem and this is well documented.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Relatively small attack? A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it
happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.

As attacks on national diplomatic missions go, just what would you term important, if this was minor?

Sometimes...I think our priorities are so screwed up, it's about hopeless to find our national path back to a place of sense and logic. Perhaps the
next time, they won't have a couple former SEALs break ranks to save over 20 civilian staffers and we can have a right and proper body count. Would
that make it more worthy of attention to at least answer what happened? I'd hope it doesn't have to go that far to warrant proper investigation,
beyond political butt covering.

Did you look at any of the other attacks I referenced?

Many of them did have a higher body count....but where was the outrage?

Typical liberal logic. None of those reported incidents could have been prevented if the administration at the time had ordered military
intervention. A car bomb explodes - the event is over. It wasn't like Al-Qada was actively storming and attacking the embassy, which is EXACTLY
what was happening when Obama went back to sleep and Hillary ordered a stand down TWICE in Benghazi.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Relatively small attack? A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it
happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.

As attacks on national diplomatic missions go, just what would you term important, if this was minor?

Sometimes...I think our priorities are so screwed up, it's about hopeless to find our national path back to a place of sense and logic. Perhaps the
next time, they won't have a couple former SEALs break ranks to save over 20 civilian staffers and we can have a right and proper body count. Would
that make it more worthy of attention to at least answer what happened? I'd hope it doesn't have to go that far to warrant proper investigation,
beyond political butt covering.

Did you look at any of the other attacks I referenced?

Many of them did have a higher body count....but where was the outrage?

New people in the party then during those other attacks.

Are you actually suggesting that since some other events were ignored that we now ignore every future attack?

What makes you assume there isn't outrage to the others? Where does that come from to say and how does it have *ANY* bearing on what happened that
night in Libya? (Or the months leading up to it)

If outrage is lacking in other areas it should be, it doesn't make the events in Benghazi any less horrific or flat wrong. At best, it makes the
investigation of the other incidents less than they should have been, if that can be fairly said.

That's an incredible leap to make for justifying why the events relating to the destruction of the Benghazi Consulate should be a non-issue.

What a disgusting and disrespectful thread. Are you serious? The US Ambassador died along with several other brave Americans in a deliberate act of
terrorism and all you can say is this is a distraction by Republicans?? Shameful.

I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.

Of course there was a cover up! They knew security was lax, they knew there was a credible threat on the anniversary of 9/11, they failed to respond
with backup by lying about what they knew and when they knew it, and they deliberately blamed the incident on a video when they knew DAMN WELL it had
nothing to do with video.

Not to mention it was covered up “Watergate” style. We were lied to and told the fight broke out over a U-tube video and it was a protect at
first. Yet it just came out that it was an all-out attack and our “leaders” knew about it the moment it started.

The fighting lasted for over 4 hours. 30 people wonded and 4 killed. Special Forces were bagging to be released to save there BROTHERS. One of the men
that died deployed a signal flare because he knew that as an American, no expenses would be spared when it came to saving other Americans lives, yet
the birds never came via DIRECT ORDER!

I cant Imagine being on BINGO ammo in those last moments, waiting to be relived because you know, as an American, back up ALWAYS comes, but it never
came.

Makes me SICK our "leaders" would hold back reinforcements in a desperate attempt to play down the terrorist attack so certain people can keep toting
“GM’s alive and Osama dies” as they declare the war on terrorism is over.

How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.

What did they cover up or attempt to cover up?

I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.

They covered up the fact that Hillary was warned about the danger but either ignored it and did nothing or simply was so inept that she ran an
organization without ensuring critical information reached her so she could act.

They tried to blame it on other things such as a videotape which caused the problem and this is well documented.

Do you have proof that they were pre-warned about this specific attack? I have never seen that. I have seen months old request for money to provide
more security...and I believe that was at the main embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

And they were in Libya during a civil war, of course it was dangerous. But I think it is just pure partisan hackery to suggest that one attack
suggest ineptness when there were 11 attacks on embassies/consulates under the previous administration.

Originally posted by 48e18
So, Benghazi has reared it's head again. And it is for no other reason besides distraction and an attempt by the Republicans to manufacture more
fake outrage in their base due to them losing support rapidly among the American public.

Why do I say this outrage is all fake and manufactured? Well, because no one cared about the 11 embassy attacks, 90+ injured, and 50+ killed in other
embassy attacks between 2002-2008. But for some reason, there is ONE attack with 4 people killed...and the Republicans are screaming about treason,
weakness, and cover-up.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed.
Sixteen more were injured.

So ATS, why is it that this one relatively small attack on a consulate is creating all this fake outrage when there is no historical precedence for it
even though there were many other worse attacks on our embassies around the world?

Here is proof that your indoctrination by the liberal media is working.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it happen, as we now know,
on video by drones overhead.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Relatively small attack? A U.S. Ambassador was murdered and a United States Consulate was over-run and totally destroyed, while our leaders watched it
happen, as we now know, on video by drones overhead.

As attacks on national diplomatic missions go, just what would you term important, if this was minor?

Sometimes...I think our priorities are so screwed up, it's about hopeless to find our national path back to a place of sense and logic. Perhaps the
next time, they won't have a couple former SEALs break ranks to save over 20 civilian staffers and we can have a right and proper body count. Would
that make it more worthy of attention to at least answer what happened? I'd hope it doesn't have to go that far to warrant proper investigation,
beyond political butt covering.

Did you look at any of the other attacks I referenced?

Many of them did have a higher body count....but where was the outrage?

New people in the party then during those other attacks.

Are you actually suggesting that since some other events were ignored that we now ignore every future attack?

Better to start late rather than never wouldn't you agree?

The thing is, it isn't you or any other common folk that is starting to be concerned about these things...you are being led and tricked into being
outraged by it. Fox News, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity is manufacturing this outrage for you.

These are not your own emotions, you couldn't have cared less about previous embassy attacks...I doubt you were even aware of them. But this
attack...this one that Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity all jumped on...this is the one you choose to care about. This isn't a coincidence...they
have manufactured emotions for you...they have created this outrage for you.

The fact that there were 11 attacks under Bush, and you probably didn't have a second thought about them, or even knew about them, should signal your
logical mind that something is not right here.

How many of those other incidents killed embassy personnel, rather than local police/security?
I think the real issue here though is the probable cover-up the administration engaged in.

What did they cover up or attempt to cover up?

I've never understood the cries of cover up, because no one ever says what they suspect they are covering up.

They covered up the fact that Hillary was warned about the danger but either ignored it and did nothing or simply was so inept that she ran an
organization without ensuring critical information reached her so she could act.

They tried to blame it on other things such as a videotape which caused the problem and this is well documented.

Do you have proof that they were pre-warned about this specific attack? I have never seen that. I have seen months old request for money to provide
more security...and I believe that was at the main embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

And they were in Libya during a civil war, of course it was dangerous. But I think it is just pure partisan hackery to suggest that one attack
suggest ineptness when there were 11 attacks on embassies/consulates under the previous administration.

CAPITOL HILL - According to testimony given by former Tripoli Regional Officer Eric Nordstrom Wednesday in front of the House Oversight Committee,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waived security requirements for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi despite extremely high risk levels. The security of
the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and diplomats occupying the building on September 11, 2012 are at the center of questioning by lawmakers.

If you don't like the source feel free to google any of the hundred of other ones available. But the major problem isn't that she even dismissed these
threats, its that the administration and the State department didn't come out and say that they did. Instead, they tried to cover it up by blaming it
on a video that riled up the mob which we now know is completely false.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.